OFFICE ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election Without Traverse
Election was made without traverse to prosecute the design of Group I (Embodiment 1) in the reply filed on 04/28/2026.
Groups II and III (Embodiments 2 and 3) are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected inventions.
Therefore, the original Groups II and III (Reproductions 2.1-3.12) directed to a design or designs nonelected without traverse, and without the right to petition, such as Group(s)/embodiment(s) have been canceled along with the corresponding figure descriptions.
The amended specifications filed on 04/28/2026 are acknowledged by the examiner.
Broken Line Statement
If the applicant elects to use the broken lines as suggested in the rejection below, the following statement must be used to describe the broken lines on the drawing (MPEP § 1503.02, subsection III):
-- The broken lines in the figures illustrate the portions of the Water Bar that form no part of the claimed design. --
If used, the above statement should be inserted in the specification preceding the claim.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C § 112 (a) & (b)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or, for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling because the shape and appearance of the claimed design cannot be understood due to the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
768
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reproductions 1.4 and 1.10 show internal structures behind the slotted vents, where the exact appearance and the three-dimensional configuration cannot be determined without resorting to conjecture. Therefore, it is suggested that the applicant reduce the said details to broken lines to avoid the claim to the indefinite details. See the annotated drawing below.
[Note: Reproduction 1.4 is shown as an example, but same correction is suggested for Reproduction 1.10.]
PNG
media_image2.png
635
762
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reproductions 1.6 and 1.13 show small areas on the bottom of the water bar, where the exact surface delineations cannot be determined with the views provided. Therefore, it is suggested that the applicant reduce the arrow pointed areas to broken lines to avoid claiming indefinite areas. See the annotated drawing below.
[Note: Reproduction 1.6 is shown as an example, but same correction is suggested for Reproduction 1.13.]
Applicant may indicate that protection is not sought for those portions of the reproductions which are considered indefinite and nonenabling in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above by amending the reproductions to color those portions or convert those portions to broken lines and by amending the specification to include a statement that the portions of the Water Bar shown in broken lines form no part of the claimed design or a statement that the portions of the Water Bar shown by coloring form no part of the claimed design provided such amendments do not introduce new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 132, 37 CFR 1.121).
When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Failure to submit replacement correction sheets overcoming all of the deficiencies in the drawing disclosure set forth above, or an explanation why the drawing corrections or additional drawing views are not necessary will result in the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, being made FINAL in the next Office action.
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity or has at least one party which has a domicile that is not located within the United States or its territories, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b).
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP § 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant's representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity or has at least one party which has a domicile that is not located within the United States, or its territories must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below.
Telephonic or in person interviews
A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO ("registered practitioner") or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner).
The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become "of record," a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 "Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO," available at www.uspto.gov/PatentForms, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP § 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form" (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO webpage indicated above). See MPEP § 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see "When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence" below.
In summary, the claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §112 (a) and (b).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI SUN YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2361. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 ~ 4:30 (Eastern).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, George Ulsh can be reached on (571) 270-1433. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI SUN YOON/Examiner, Art Unit 2922
Prosecution Insights